Skip to main content

What Did James Clyburn Do During the House Recess?

Among other things (no doubt), House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) sat down with South Carolina Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Otis Rawl and discussed energy and economic issues. This exchange on CEO Corner jumped out,
Rawl: Do you think nuclear, in, from a national level, is a viable alternative?
Clyburn: It is. It absolutely is. All we have to do is to step up and make the case. I have been unabashed in my support for nuclear energy. That's about 54% of the energy we produce in this state. We don't consume all of that. We export some of it. But it is a very critical part of the economy in South Carolina. And I do believe that there's much more support in the Congress for nuclear being a significant part of the sources going forward. [Emphasis added.]
The entire interview can be seen here. (The nuclear nugget appears at the 3:05 mark.)


Comments

James Clyburn is going to get a lot of heat from the extreme left for his support for more nuclear energy. So I think nuclear advocates should email the majority whip to show our support.
Anonymous said…
Frank Hummel (retired Electrical Engineer from the St. Louis, Missouri area)

We now know how to build nuclear fission reactors in ways that are at least INTRINSICALLY IMMUNE TO ANY POSSIBILITY OF MELTDOWN a la Chernobyl in the Ukraine, or (almost) Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

It is AT LEAST possible to fabricate “the pile" in such a way that the fissile material density simply is not so great that if there is a loss-of-coolant accident (or maybe attack?) the temperature in the core would "go to the moon". The most promising-sounding proposals along these lines involve encasing pieces of the uranium fuel in CARBIDE spheres about the size of billiard balls, instead of in the classic "fuel rod" assemblies. These are positioned in a HORIZONTALLY ORIENTED BED. The fissile material density is then MUCH LOWER, so that the TEMPERATURES that would be attained if the heat-exchange-fluid flow were to fail for any reason would be lower, so THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD NOT BE UTTERLY DISASTROUS!

And such a design ALSO has the advantage that REFUELING reactors can be accomplished on a “DISTRIBUTED” basis, by simply adding NEW "fuel balls" at the top of the bed while pulling out old ones off the bottom --- SO THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHUT SYSTEMS DOWN COMPLETELY FOR MONTHS ON END IN ORDER TO GET THE JOB DONE!

Any NEW dinosaurs of the FISSION type that might be built should SURELY, at least, apply THESE concepts! But who here is even THINKING about --- much less seriously considering actually IMPLEMENTING --- such “esoterica”? No, “we” are FAR too busy dithering about mere “politics” --- and now about the ECONOMIC “meltdown”! (And really, in connection with THAT disaster, most people over here seem to only be FOOLISHLY trying to do nothing more than re-establish “Business as Usual”!)

The ONLY way I, for one, would support any further FISSION dinosaur being built today would be if the meltdown-proof design were used. So far as I know, all the noises being made are for additional "conventional" designs. So I have expressed to my OWN Congressional representatives my OPPOSITION to the additional unit being proposed by Ameren UE here in Missouri. I suggest other folks elsewhere might wish to do likewise.
Matt said…
The opposition to nuclear only appears to be "far left" when you are viewing it from the far right.

Think about that, guy.

Even if a reactor could be expected to perform 100% reliably under normal circumstances, we still have the waste to deal with. The problems of disposing with nuclear waste are mammoth, and the risks are great. Really, everything that has to do with the fuel is incredibly dangerous.

That, in addition to the fact that we would still be dependent on foreign energy. I believe canada and south africa are the only producers of fuel, correct? (I am too lazy to check ATM)

We need to spend our tax dollars on researching/implementing clean, renewable, SAFE energy.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…